alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of ZymoGenetics, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Johnson, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as
adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780 (d)); and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

  /s/ James A. Johnson
-------------------------------------------
James A. Johnson
Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2003

A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAACO ENTERPRISES, INC. )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1187

)

RICHARD GREIG and )

MERLE I. GREIG )

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants, Richard Greig and Merle I. Greig, by and through their attorneys, hereby 

demand trial by jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38.

May 2, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

_____________/s/_______________

Jason P. Gosselin

18th &Cherry Streets

One Logan Square

Philadelphia, PA 19103

PH: 215-988-3371

Fax: 215-988-2757

Edward A. McConwell

McCONWELL LAW OFFICES

5925 Beverly Avenue

Mission, Kansas 66202

Phone: 913-262-0605 

Fax: 913-262-0652

For Defendants Richard Greig 

And Merle I. Greig

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 6 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 2
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAACO ENTERPRISES, INC. )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1187

)

RICHARD GREIG and )

MERLE I. GREIG )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jason P. Gosselin, do hereby certify that on this date a copy of Defendants’ DEMAND 

FOR JURY TRIAL has been filed electronically and is available for downloading and viewing 

from the ECF system.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/

Jason P. Gosselin

Case 2:05-cv-01187-CMR Document 6 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

December 3, 1958

No. 62517.

#### Marconi International Marine Communication Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 275413-K and 314500-K (New York).

Opinion, by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of klystron tubes the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marconi Instruments, Ltd.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 311, C. D. 1880), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, Preferred
Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series A (Series A), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series As Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series A.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                
|David K. Spohr                                    
|Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|May 15, 2006
CERTIFICATION Exhibit 31.2

I, Robert Knoth, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report of Form 10-KSB of IEH Corporation;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this annual report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

          a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, is made known to me
          by others within the company, particularly during the period in which
          this annual report is being prepared;

          b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation (the
          "Evaluation Date"); and

          c. Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the most recent
          fiscal quarter that has materially effected, or is reasonably likely
          to materially effect, the registrant's internal control over financial
          reporting;

     5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
     registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

          a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

          b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
          internal controls; and

     6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 6, 2004

-------------------------------
Robert Knoth
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE TAYLOR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 69 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE TAYLOR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 70 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 12, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 12, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0126. TIFT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, INC. d/b/a TIFT 

REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

SU18CV2527
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32 (A)

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northland Cable Television, Inc. and
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-Q"), I, John Whetzell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;

         (1)      The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13 (a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)); and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.




DATE: 8-16-04

/s/  JOHN S. WHETZELL
    --------------------------------
    John S. Whetzell
    Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement will be retained by Northland Cable
Television, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120-2 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120-2 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120-2 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120-2 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 4 of 4
# C_2017392EN.01002902.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/29

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA

(Case T-297/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - EMCDDA staff - Decision not to renew a contract of employment - Termination of the contract - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Administrative inquiry - Impartiality of the inquiry))

(2017/C 392/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Győr, Hungary) (represented by: A. Véghely, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti and F. Pereyra, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015, Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (F-79/13, EU:F:2015:49), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Gyarmathy

EMCDDA

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy is to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy is to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20556

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERALDO MENDOZA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-53-1

--------------------

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Geraldo Mendoza-Martinez appeals the conviction and 87-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of

illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, a

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been

charged in the indictment. Mendoza-Martinez acknowledges that

his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
No. 00-20556

-2-

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). MendozaMartinez’s argument is foreclosed.

Mendoza-Martinez argues that his indictment was defective

under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it did not allege

general intent. Because Mendoza-Martinez did not challenge his

indictment in the district court, we review whether it was

constitutionally sufficient under a "maximum liberality"

standard. See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236

(5th Cir. 2000). Mendoza-Martinez’s indictment “fairly imported

that his reentry was a voluntary act” and satisfied the

constitutional requirements of a valid indictment. See id. at

236, 239 & n.13.

Mendoza-Martinez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1310 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1310

  To amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to specify which 
 depository institutions are subject to the maintenance of records and 
      disclosure requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2017

  Mr. Rounds (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Tester, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
  Donnelly, and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; which was 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to specify which 
 depository institutions are subject to the maintenance of records and 
      disclosure requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS SUBJECT TO MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND 
              DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 
1975 (12 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as paragraph (3) and 
        adjusting the margins accordingly; and
            (2) by inserting before paragraph (3), as so redesignated, 
        the following:
    ``(i) Exemptions.--
            ``(1) Closed-end mortgage loans.--With respect to a 
        depository institution, the requirements of paragraphs (5) and 
        (6) of subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to closed-
        end mortgage loans if the depository institution originated 
        less than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the 2 
        preceding calendar years.
            ``(2) Open-end lines of credit.--With respect to a 
        depository institution, the requirements of paragraphs (5) and 
        (6) of subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to open-end 
        lines of credit if the depository institution originated less 
        than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the 2 preceding 
        calendar years.''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 304(i)(3) of the Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act of 1975, as so redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is 
amended by striking ``section 303(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section 
303(3)(A)''.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY LYNN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0543 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARGO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants, having filed and re-served a motion for summary judgment, ask that

the pretrial conference be vacated and to be relieved of the obligation to file a pretrial statement. 

Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, or, for that matter,

a pretrial statement. Court records reflect plaintiff was properly re-served with notice of the

motion and the order granting an extension of time to file opposition at plaintiff’s address of

record. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” Further, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure

to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Case 2:04-cv-00543-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

By order filed December 23, 2004, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for

filing an opposition to a motion for summary judgment under the Local Rules and cautioned that

failure to comply with the Local Rules might result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff is

ordered to show cause why, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), the court should not deem the

failure to file written opposition as a waiver of any opposition to the granting of defendant’s

motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ August 10, 2006, request that the pretrial conference date in this

matter be vacated is granted; the parties are relieved of their obligation to file pretrial statements

at this time;

2. In light of defendants’ May 5, 2006, motion for summary judgment, re-served

on June 12, 2006, the trial date in this matter is vacated; both the pretrial conference and trial

dates will be re-set, if appropriate, following resolution of the pending dispositive motion;

3. Plaintiff must show cause, within 30 days, for his failure to file an opposition

to the pending summary judgment motion and show cause why the failure to do so should not be

deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion; failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and/or for his

failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: 8/16/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:099

lynn0543.osc+

Case 2:04-cv-00543-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
FISCAL YEAR [YEAR]

SPREADSHEET FOR SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM

LEAs Defined as Rural

To Define an LEA as Rural, the SEA needs to supply the following documentation in this worksheet:

1. The identity of the State governmental agency that established the definition

2. A copy of the rural definition

3. The SEA’s concurrence that the use of the definition and inclusion of the LEA in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement Program is appropriate.

1. State Agency that Established the Definition: STATE:

2. Copy of the State Approved Definition of Rural:

3. Identification of the LEA, and SEA Concurrence that the use of the definition and inclusion of 

the LEA in the Small, Rural School Achievement Program is appropriate.

NCES 

SCHOOL 

ID #

STATE 

SCHOOL 

ID # 

SCHOOL LEA NAME CITY

Does the SEA

concur that 

inclusion is 

appropriate?

(YES/NO)
NCES 

SCHOOL 

ID #

STATE 

SCHOOL 

ID # 

SCHOOL LEA NAME CITY

Does the SEA

concur that 

inclusion is 

appropriate?

(YES/NO)

Public Burden Statement:
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per response, 

including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (ESEA Section 

6212/6221). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 

reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1810-0646. Note: Please do not return the completed REAP application to this 

address.

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form write directly to: 

Email: REAPSEA@ed.gov

Subject: SRSA Application Status
# sec6_rsonp_2018

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSOCNP - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2018